Saturday, June 22, 2013

Wrong Debate

During a news break on
a jazz station I sometimes listen to when I'm driving, I heard about a contentious debate between President Obama and
congressional Republicans. Too bad that when I checked the news later on, I
found no such thing:

Differences between the two sides involve when the rate on a loan
gets locked in, with Obama calling for it to happen right away while the House
measure would allow it to rise until a student graduates.

Another
difference concerns maximum rates.

The House measure would cap
interest rates at 8.5% for student loans while the Obama proposal would contain
no such cap but would include a program to limit a former student's annual
expenditures on the loan to no more than 10% of discretionary
income.

In other words, both sides agree that the goverment should be in the business
of dictating how some banks and college students do business with each other.
They're just quibbling over details.

"Her pleasure makes him feel so
good that it's clearly in his self-interest to ensure her happiness every
chance he gets." [links dropped] -- Michael Hurd, in "Can 'Single-Think'
Become 'Couple-Think?'" at The Delaware Coast Press

"If someone is your friend, doesn't it make sense to try and stop
her from making a mistake?" -- Michael Hurd, in "Care Enough to Have an Opinion" at
The Delaware Wave

"By not seriously considering what the
minimum wage demands from such business people, we are treating them not as
human beings with rights, but as pack animals that must obediently carry
whatever additional weight is piled on their back." -- Doug
Altner, in "The Forgotten Man of the Minimum-Wage Debate" at
The Daily Caller

My Two
Cents

As one can see from the Bowden piece, many antitrust
actions against technology companies have been, at least in part, attempts to
legislate against vendor lock-in.

I hate vendor lock-in, but oppose such
efforts. First of all, I think more people should look before they leap, and
either find alternatives that permit them to avoid lock-in -- or at least
recognize that they gain something (e.g., convenience) in return for accepting
it. Second, the government has no business re-writing contracts (e.g., by
forcing companies like Apple to "unlock" their phones) just because some people
don't like some of the terms that they agreed to.